Publication: Business Day Issued: Date: 2007-06-06 Reporter: Ernest Mabuza

State Victory on Zuma Diary May Prove Illusory

 

Publication 

Business Day
Date 2007-06-06

Reporter

 Ernest Mabuza

Web Link

www.businessday.co.za

 

The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) yesterday won a hollow *1 victory in its quest to gather evidence it might present to national director of prosecutions Vusi Pikoli to help him make a decision on whether to recharge Jacob Zuma and French arms company Thint.

Durban High Court Judge Jan Hugo granted the NPA permission to send a letter of request to Mauritian authorities for original documents to aid in its investigation into Zuma and Thint.

However, Hugo said if the Mauritian authorities complied with the request the NPA was still not entitled to access the documents until the Supreme Court of Appeal ruled in September on the appeal by Zuma and Thint against the letter of request issued by Judge Philip Levensohn in April.

“This is a major step forward. It reaffirms our earlier position that we will not do anything outside the ambit of the law. The ruling takes us closer to where we were when the case was struck off the roll,” says NPA spokesman Panyaza Lesufi.

Lesufi was referring to September last year, when Judge Herbert Msimang refused the state’s application for a postponement in the case against Zuma and French arms manufacturer Thint as he found there had been an unreasonable delay by the state.

When the state indicated it was unable to proceed, Msimang struck the case off the roll.

Lesufi says that when the case was struck off the state requested time to gather all documents relevant to the case.

“We insisted that we will go ahead with gathering evidence that is needed and present it to the national director of public prosecutions to make a decision on whether to prosecute. ”

The documents the state requires from the Mauritian authorities are the originals of the documents it obtained during search and seizure operations in Mauritius in 2001. They include the 2000 diary of the former local head of French arms company Thales, Alain Thetard, recording a meeting at which an agreement to bribe Zuma was allegedly discussed.

The state feels that information contained in these documents will be required *2 for any prosecution that may arise.

The copies of these documents were used in the prosecution against Zuma’s former financial adviser, Schabir Shaik, for corruption and fraud. Following Shaik’s conviction, the state decided to prosecute Zuma and Thint, and their trials were set down for July last year.

In March last year, the state applied for the issue of the letter of request for the production of the documents in Mauritius. That request was declined by Judge Pete Combrinck, who said only the trial court presiding at proceedings could issue the request.

In his April judgment, Levensohn said there appeared to be sufficient evidence that the 2001 request was made properly, and that the search and seizure process was a lawful one. Zuma and Thint will challenge Levensohn’s decision in the Supreme Court of Appeal on September 21.

The state might be in a position to decide whether to recharge Zuma and Thint only after the Supreme Court of Appeal ruled on two other applications in August. The state will challenge two judgments, of the Durban and Johannesburg high courts, related to the setting aside of search and seizure warrants granted to the NPA in August 2005. The two warrants were obtained from Transvaal Judge President Bernard Ngoepe.

Former Zuma attorney Julekha Mahomed took the NPA to court in August 2005 to demand the return of documents and a computer hard drive that were seized from her home and office, saying the warrants contained no safeguards to protect attorney-client privilege.

Johannesburg High Court Judge Ismail Hussain said the NPA’s application for a search and seizure warrant did not make full disclosure of the facts. He said the NPA failed to alert Ngoepe to the potential breach of attorney-client privilege by describing Mahomed as Zuma’s “personal legal assistant”.

In February last year, Durban High Court Judge Noel Hurt also set aside search warrants pertaining to Zuma’s offices and homes and the Durban offices of Zuma’s lawyer, Michael Hulley.

Hulley says that he is satisfied the state will not be able to use the documents from Mauritius until the Supreme Court of Appeal finalises the matter.

“We take issue with Judge Levensohn’s judgment, and that is why we wanted the matter to be heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal first.”

Hulley does not rule out launching a challenge in Mauritius against the NPA. “Should the state send a letter of request, we will give it our consideration and take the necessary steps,” he says.

Lesufi says the NPA has reached an advanced stage of its preparation for sending the letter of request, which requires a lot of protocol work.

“It’s a prolonged process. We should take the letter to the justice department, then to the foreign affairs department and then to the South African embassy in Mauritius.

“We are of the view that by September, the documents will be handed to the registrar for safekeeping.”

With acknowledgements to Ernest Mabuza and Business Day.


*1       This journalist makes a very startling claim and then fails to justify it in any way.

As the NPA's spokesman say : “This is a major step forward."

That's what it is.

Every house in the Battle of Stalingrad was important.

Every house in Stalingrad was important because it had people living in it and any house could have been the point at which the tide of battle turned and eventually ousted the dictator.


*2      Not the information contained in these documents, just the documents.